Favourite Atheist arguments

[Valjean]

What does God have against the poor little marmot? With the exception of the fact that it is the only known animal to naturally **** bricks.

??? -- I thought that was wombats.

 

[Subduction Zone]

??? -- I thought that was wallabies.

No, wombats. I remembered too late.

 

[Valjean]

Wow does it? Seriously?

The wombat's cubic poop is one of nature's weirdest superpowers

 

[Valjean]

I am not asking him to tell me the abolsute truth though, in asking him to give a reason his world view is more likely to be true than mine.

World-view or belief in God? They're different -- and not mutually exclusive.
Atheism isn't a world view, or even a belief. It's a non-belief. A not belief can't be either true or untrue.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah I remember whenever negative athiests pulled that old chestnut. Inherently it makes no sense but I will ignore that to progress the conversation.

Why does it make no sense? If you're working from a different, older, non-standard definition of atheism do et us know, so we're not arguing past each other.

Let's assume it's a monotheistic perfect being god along the lines of a Protestant Christian theology

OK, so what empirical, reasonable evidence is there for such a being?

 

[Valjean]

The originator of the black death was the marmot, transferred to their fleas, the rest is history

Interesting. How do we know what the original host of Yersinia was? Is there a link?

 

[Valjean]

Is there no evidence of the awesome unicorn where we would expect to find them?

No evidence anywhere, and why would anyone expect to find one?

 

[night912]

I suppose it has been something that's happened relatively recently. Firstly to know why it's so silly u have to understand what it is to lack belief in something.

So let's say Bob is walking around and out of the blue I jump in and tell him there is a big were cat somewhere up the road. Bob has three choices. He either believes me, rejects what I say or witholds judgment. Non of these are a lack of belief. Bob lacked believe in the were cat before I confronted him. That's because he wasn't even aware that there could be a were cat. That is to lack belief in something.

Since Bob lacks the belief in something, in this case, that "something" is, the existence of an actual were cat, and not the existence of the concept of a were cat.
Now do the same thing to atheism/atheists. So can you please explain why it's silly for Bob to lack the belief in the existence of an actual were cat.

However the athiest is already engaging in the conversation so he can't lack belief in something. He has already shown that he has been confront with the question/statement. I remember hearing an athiest comparing their lack of belief is the same as a babies.

So by your way of reasoning, you believe that God doesn't exist because you have in the past and/or are currently engaging in the conversation that God doesn't exist. Congratulations, you're an atheist.

But why stop here when we can go further and make the "something" to be just about anything. So let's look at a similar scenario with just a few changes here and there.

So let's say Bob is a believer in the existence of an actual were cat and while he is walking around and out of the blue you jump in and tell him there is a big were cat somewhere up the road. Bob has three choices. He either believes that there is no big were cat somewhere up the road. He rejects that what you said to be true or false because no sufficient evidence was presented therefore not believing that there is or isn't a big were cat somewhere up the road. He witholds judgment due to no evidence. For all three, Bob lacks the belief that there is a big were cat somewhere up the road.

Here, the lack of belief in the "something," is not the same as in the first scenario. Here, that "something," is not the existence of a were cat, instead, it's whether or not there is a big were cat somewhere up the road.

And now let's apply your way of reasoning here.

So because you are engaging in this conversation/discussion, you believe......

1. I'm God, because I just said it in this conversation.

2. You're a liar, because I just said it in this conversation.

3. You're an atheist, because I just said it in this conversation.

4. You're a Muslim, because I just said it in this conversation.

5. You're always wrong and I'm always right, because I just said it in this conversation.

6. The list can go on and on, because I just said it in this conversation.


Of course, I disagree with your reasoning because it is irrational to think that a conversation is the "be all and end all," to people's beliefs. Perhaps you should asked the person what that "something" actually is, instead of you making an assumption and assigning it to them.

Also, equivocation is fallacious. It's not surprising to see some believers do this and actually believe that by using this tactic they are being rational and not being dishonest.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Interesting. How do we know what the original host of Yersinia was? Is there a link?

Some recent theories seem to imply it was human lice, and fleas probably, that were the cause of the plagues, and not those cute marmots - only seen one whilst cycling in the Alps.

 

[ChristineM]

Surely you mean marmite. That darn dyslexia, eh?

No, marmot it was but i think you have just hit another nail on the head.

 

[Valjean]

No that's agnosticism.

Atheism and agnosticism can be the same thing. You can not believe and not know at the same time.

I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster -- because there's no evidence of the former, and insufficient evidence of the latter. Should good evidence be found for either, I'll believe.
I go where the evidence leads.

 

[Valjean]

A physical thing can be everywhere?

Depends how one defines "physical thing." Are the laws and constants of physics everywhere? Gravity? Spacetime?

 

[Valjean]

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. This is what an agnostic is. Originally there were three camps in the discussion thiesm, agnosticism and athiesm. One said there was a god the other said there wasn't and the third said the don't know or I can't know.

Then about fifty years ago athiest started pushing this lack of belief to try and push the burden of proof onto the thiests. But they have never claimed they are agnostic in fact that is why they stated lack of belief and not just not knowing.

Mate I think it's u that needs to get the definitions sorted out :S

Isn't that why they sought to clarify the ambiguous definitions, so people wouldn't be talking past each other in discussions like this?
Nobody's pushing any burden around. True, there are different sorts of atheism. There's a broad, basic definition, comprising the single quality common to all varieties, which a lack of belief. Offshoots and variations are indicated with modifiers -- hard, implicit, explicit, &c.

 

[Valjean]

U see if there were a pink unicorn I suppose I would expect to see corpses, or shavings, pictures etc. But I don't see those things. Expecting, reasonably, to see evidence in certain places but finding none is evidence against something and while it's easy to do with a horse with a horn, with a diety it's not as clear cut.

Exactly! There's no hard evidence at all.
We don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in little green men from Mars or the FSM. We're both withholding belief pending evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

Ha. I'm not really a "prove god does not exist" since I wasn't raised abrahamic so don't know what god is to form more than an opinion. Nonetheless, it seems all gods tend to be a part of people's culture, interpretation, and their need to find purpose and meaning. Whether they see it as an incarnation, practice, or experience like a spiritual awakening, it pretty much goes back to humans. Thousands of years ago we used to think we were the center of the universe (maybe hundreds or decades, who knows?). Maybe we used to think gods are actually real just as human beings.

Another thing is we have so many definition of god(s) that to even say one exist and the others do not is really pushing it. Unless one can prove humans don't have a connection and creation with the gods they believe in or experience in practice, I don't really have other arguments. "No evidence" isn't really a thing I use because there is evidence of god and people's experiences of gods just not in the way most atheist on RF tend to define it (and accept from others how it is defined).

Tarasan, if you believe in god (Muslim, Jew, Christian, whomever), how do you define god and prove god's existence outside your own (and other people's) interpretation of it?

Actually, the God of the bible doesn't 'think' like society thinks. Far from it.
To this God small was big, submission was strength, faith instead of proof
and so on.
And our earth IS the center of the universe, in fact the sun revolves around
the earth - as Einstein put it, the 'observer' is supreme. There is no center
to the universe, YOU are the center. And if an astronaut sees the earth
going around the moon then he is right - he's the observer.

 

[Valjean]

Ok but is there any evidence that there is

We are getting off track, if u believe that u can assert your worldview with no evidence then it goes to say that I can as well. You tell me there is no evidence for god I tell you there is no evidence against God and we both stay in that neutral place merely asserting our views as correct

Seriously? Lack of evidence against something is evidence for it? Should we believe everything till we find empirical evidence against it?
How did you rue out Krishna and Odin, then?

I mean I could just as easily say to you.

"Do you believe in magic?"

Cause if you say no then you have already employed why people believe there is a creator.

Huh? Not following. Clarify, please?

The rational and scientifically oriented don't generally believe in magic, ie: effect without cause.

It's the religious who argue in favor of magic: speaking the world into being, magic poofing of animals, Sun and Moon standing still, water into wine, raising the dead, walking on water, and so on.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, the God of the bible doesn't 'think' like society thinks. Far from it.
To this God small was big, submission was strength, faith instead of proof
and so on.
And our earth IS the center of the universe, in fact the sun revolves around
the earth - as Einstein put it, the 'observer' is supreme. There is no center
to the universe, YOU are the center. And if an astronaut sees the earth
going around the moon then he is right - he's the observer.

How do you know you are the center of the universe?

Many believed the earth to be flat instead of round. Many people think the earth is a perfect ball, it is not.

How do you know what God thinks?

I would think that since God isn't supposed to be of human they wouldn't and couldn't know what God is and does at all?

 

[PruePhillip]

How do you know you are the center of the universe?

Many believed the earth to be flat instead of round. Many people think the earth is a perfect ball, it is not.

How do you know what God thinks?

I would think that since God isn't supposed to be of human they wouldn't and couldn't know what God is and does at all?

I am talking about the God of the bible. That's the only God I accept.
I know I am the center of the universe because there is no center, and
every observer becomes the center.
In any case I am not sure the bible says anything of the sort.

 

[PureX]

So let's see ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist.

No. 2. also relies on a couple of presumptions that are not logically or even reasonably sound. One such presumption is that if God exists, we humans would be universally able to conceptualize the nature and manner of that existence. Yet being that God is generally considered to be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and we humans clearly do not yet possess the capacity for understanding this ultimate fundament of existence, I don't see how we could be logically expected to conceptualize it accurately, or universally. These same atheists do not expect scientists to all agree on the origin or conceptualization of the physical universe, and yet they for some odd reason expect theists to all hold the same understanding of God. And yet again, when this blatant double-standard is pointed out to them, they simply walk away repeating their complaint as if reason and hypocrisy were of no consequence to them, at all.

No. 3. I can at least accept for it's honesty, if not necessarily for it's basis in logic. If, from the human perspective, God's nature and existence is not discernible, then why should we waste time trying? And that's a valid question if the premise is true. And the premise is clearly true in terms of our gaining any clear understanding of the nature and existence of God. And the premise would also be true if there were no advantage to be gained for humanity by trying, in spite of the difficulty. But although these points are partly true, they are not entirely true. And especially not entirely true for all of us, all the time. Humanity does gain some understanding of this great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is by our seeking. How accurate that understanding is, is certainly debatable. As it should be. And some of our presumed understanding of the 'god-mystery' is bound to be quite wrong. Yet there are some universal common ideals, and they do bear reasoned consideration (as opposed to a blanket dismissal).
Also, a great many humans do find significant and positive value in the process of contemplating the nature and character of this 'god-mystery'. So much so that even though their conceptualizations of God are constantly changing over time, and even though many of these conceptual characterizations disagree with each other, we humans still develop and pursue them in earnest. A huge majority of us, in fact. And again, these may all or nearly all be wrong, but the universality of this desire is overwhelming, and therefor not to be taken lightly, and dismissed out of hand. To do so may be a legitimate choice, ... but it's not a particularly wise one.

What the atheist arguments all seem to boil down to is resentment based on lack of control. If the atheist can't understand this god-mystery fully, and obviously; then he rejects it entirely. And that's just not a particularly logical or reasonable reaction to theism. At least not to my way of thinking. But I welcome debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let's see ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist.

Wow! That is quite the strawman. Atheists do not use that as evidence of the nonexistence of god. That is the reason that they do not believe in god. Now that can be evidence of the nonexistence of specific versions of god since some versions would clearly leave evidence. It sounds as if the fault is with you in thus, not with the atheists, since you have to misrepresent their arguments.

No. 2. also relies on a couple of presumptions that are not logically or even reasonably sound. One such presumption is that if God exists, we humans would be universally able to conceptualize the nature and manner of that existence. Yet being that God is generally considered to be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and we humans clearly do not yet possess the capacity for understanding this ultimate fundament of existence, I don't see how we could be logically expected to conceptualize it accurately, or universally. These same atheists do not expect scientists to all agree on the origin or conceptualization of the physical universe, and yet they for some odd reason expect theists to all hold the same understanding of God. And yet again, when this blatant double-standard is pointed out to them, they simply walk away repeating their complaint as if reason and hypocrisy were of no consequence to them, at all.

This is essentially repeating your previous strawman and misrepresentation of what atheists say. God may have these traits. Once again you try to change the atheist argument. This argument is against certain varieties of god. You don't seem to understand that different people worship different varieties of god. Some of those varieties should have a universal conception of him. It is even claimed in their holy books. The lack of a universal conception only refutes those versions of god, not all of them.

No. 3. I can at least accept for it's honesty, if not necessarily for it's basis in logic. If, from the human perspective, God's nature and existence is not discernible, then why should we waste time trying? And that's a valid question if the premise is true. And the premise is clearly true in terms of our gaining any clear understanding of the nature and existence of God. And the premise would also be true if there were no advantage to be gained for humanity by trying, in spite of the difficulty. But although these points are partly true, they are not entirely true. And especially not entirely true for all of us, all the time. Humanity does gain some understanding of this great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is by our seeking. How accurate that understanding is, is certainly debatable. As it should be. And some of our presumed understanding of the 'god-mystery' is bound to be quite wrong. Yet there are some universal common ideals, and they do bear reasoned consideration (as opposed to a blanket dismissal).
Also, a great many humans do find significant and positive value in the process of contemplating the nature and character of this 'god-mystery'. So much so that even though their conceptualizations of God are constantly changing over time, and even though many of these conceptual characterizations disagree with each other, we humans still develop and pursue them in earnest. A huge majority of us, in fact. And again, these may all or nearly all be wrong, but the universality of this desire is overwhelming, and therefor not to be taken lightly, and dismissed out of hand. To do so may be a legitimate choice, ... but it's not a particularly wise one.

What the atheist arguments all seem to boil down to is resentment based on lack of control. If the atheist can't understand this god-mystery fully, and obviously; then he rejects it entirely. And that's just not a particularly logical or reasonable reaction to theism. At least not to my way of thinking. But I welcome debate.

Okay, you like the concept of a god. And yet you do not seem to understand that the burden of proof in a discussion is on you. People who will probably correct you for your many errors here, but I doubt if many will want a discussion. It is not wise to start with rather blatant strawman arguments and then request a dialogue.